Barren Bitches Book Brigade

It's that time again.

This time we read "Never Let Me Go," by Kazuo Ishiguro. I must say, this book really hit me hard. I suppose I will get to that later on though.

Oh, and if you have not read the book... stop now. The questions may give away some hard hitting stuff in the book. And this is one book you do not want to have ruined for you. Go into reading it like new fallen snow, pure and innocent. No reading about the plot, no reading this post, don't skip ahead, and no preconceived notions.

The Q and A session is just below, but I wanted to remind you that, once you're done here, you should hop along to another stop on this blog tour by visiting the main list at Stirrup Queens (http://stirrup-queens.blogspot.com/). You can also sign up for the next book on this online book club: The Red Tent by Anita Diamant.

Okay then, formalities aside, let the think tank begin.

3) One thing that struck me while reading the book is that the characters seem very passive. Although certain knowledge is withheld from them along the way, and they do have questions, they do not really rebel or protest their fate, or try to escape. They seem quite accepting of the future that has been laid out for them. Why do you think this is so?

This is the thing that really ate me throughout the book. Why didn't they fight harder to be free, why didn't they ever try running away, why didn't they scream. And then, at the end, as sad as it was, I realized why.

I knew the feeling. Learned helplessness. When you're raised in an environment being told that it is the only way you can live, you eventually accept it. You don't look for a way to escape, you don't look outside the walls, you settle yourself to a lifetime of whatever it is. But I also know that if you're strong you can fight it.

I grew up in a bad home. We were poor, my family was uneducated, most of them drug addicts, highschool dropouts, pregnant in their teens, and I was raised being told that life sucks and that this is all I can ever hope for. I set myself against it very young. I decided I did not want that life. I decided I would live my life different. I got married young, I did not get pregnant in highschool (I avoided any relationship like the plague, I was too scared of getting pregnant to even date. Oh, the irony.) I am the first one in my family to get a college degree, and three years ago I finally went from lower class to middle class. Of course, then I decided I wanted the whole cake instead of just a piece of it... and then the baby never came. But I have yet to give up on that. I am going to have the family and the life I always wanted.

And so you can see my bafflement at their resignation. I know that if you want something bad enough you can break the siren call of learned helplessness. You don't have to resign yourself to live the life others have set before you. But they did. I know, some of them tried to fight it. But once they were told that there was no way, they gave up. Why didn't they run? People couldn't tell that they were clones without being told so, could they? I can't wrap my brain around it.

And then I wondered if maybe it is because they didn't want to escape it. But if that was the case... why? I can't understand.

I am interested to see what other people thought about this question, because as you can see... I'm lost in thought.

5) At the end of Never Let Me Go, they mentioned “designer babies” had turned people against the whole clone issue. Now, ABC news featured a story tonight (3/3/09) about parents being able to build their baby http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6998135&page=1 (a bit of reality reflecting art). How does this make you feel? Do you think PGD should only be used to avoid health issues and genetic defects? Is it ok to use it to have a baby who can save your current child’s life through marrow transplant? Is it ok to pick hair type and eye color?

Those news stories upset me quite a bit. I am against using it to pick what a child looks like cosmetically, and am on the fence about them using it to prevent defects. I am against it for cosmetic reasons because first of all, it just seems wrong to me. It's like you're saying you can't love a child that doesn't have that hair color you want them to have, or that they need to have that eye color or else they're wrong. It would send a horrible message to the child, they would be under the impression that if they hadn't looked the way they did mommy and daddy wouldn't love them. At least, that's the way I see it.

I can completely understand using it to prevent a defect and serious health issues, however I don't think I would do that. I suppose that it should be left to each individual, like anything else in our reproductive business it should be a joint decision between us and our doctors. Part of me thinks that by doing this it sends the message again that the parents wouldn't love those children if they were born that way, or that the with these children with defects and genetic issues are are less than other people. For example, if someone had a child with cancer. If they could go back in time and not have them, and instead have a genetically selected child... would they? The embyo's aren't those children, they aren't those people. I get that. I do. The embryos are not the same as living children that you are attached to... But... I don't know.

Let me explain where I am coming from here... My little brother has a sister who is mentally handicapped, and that's just the way she was meant to be. She is beautiful and loving, and I can't imagine her any other way. Who she is, is who she is. She is my age, with the mind of a three year old, she's oversized, out of proportion, and she is perfect the way she is. And in my mind I have trouble picturing a world where someone would chose not to create her.

As I said, it should be up to the individual. But, I don't think I would ever do it.

6) If you knew with certainty that you had a child with a shortened life expectancy, would you raise the child any differently? For example, are there certain experiences you'd want to ensure that they had? Are there things that you wouldn't bother to make them do (flossing? eat healthy foods? go to school?) since they wouldn't have the same long-term impact as they would for other children? Would it make a difference in your parenting if you knew exactly at what age the child was expected to die as opposed to a general sense of foreshortened lifespan?

I think it would to an extent. I wouldn't sweat the little things as much. I probably wouldn't push the flossing, that's for sure. I am sure I would try to give them the best life I could in what short time they had. But I wouldn't alter it so much that they didn't do things like other children. I would have them go to school, build friendships, enjoy everyday as best they could. I would want them to feel normal, but at the same time I would want them to live each and every day to the fullest.

Of course, isn't that the irnoy. You can have a healthy happy child, and lose them the next day in an accident or to an illness you never saw coming. So really, each day should be lived to the fullest whether you know your child is dying or not. We all die, the only question is when, and that is the question we don't always know.

Okay, don't forget to go visit other blogs on the tour.